What does it mean to be an artist?Does it mean not to rely on

Art is what women like

And should "complex" art be appreciated as an ideal to strive towards or is it simply art adjusted for the developed tools and standards of criticism(i.e. works that are designed specifically to be analyzed by those analysis theories that are available?) mastered by art critics?
If so what is its opposite? A piece that is completely unplanned created quickly at a moment of inspiration?

>>552420
If the common folk find it beautiful and are amazed, then its good art, imo. I think the art "culture" personifies itself as some high brow elite circle. I think this kills art.

If an average joe can look at art and immediately feel it, then the artist is a genius. The measurement of ones art should be based on those who know nothing about technique, conceptions, structures.

Art these days feels like its in its own bubble, which is not good. This is why I think art, such as tattoos and graffiti, have grown in appreciation over the years.

>>552541
>simply restating old cliches about modern art without giving it any thought

You realize you just said "i dont like it" ?

>>552553
Thank you for assuming, it speaks miles about you.

Indeed, I do enjoy some modern art, but my opinion still stands, and it's an opinion that I've personally heard from other artists. I think there is something to a person like for Van Gogh who decided to paint working people in setting. It can have an immediate response from masses. Everyone is free to enjoy what they enjoy, I'm just stating my own opinion (hence why I wrote "imo").

>>552585
Well the reason why i disagree is that you cannot compare painting before cinema and photography to painting afterwards.
Cinema and photography killed mimetic painting.
Painting had to find different niches that were beyond mimicking reality.
There is no point painting landscapes if you can simply photograph them.
Yes you can stylize them through painting but it does not hold the same worth as it did before photography.
Not art form can stay the same once a new one appears.
Painting was always niche and elitistic since painting as a medium is not for mass consumption or ownership, unlike movies that are inherently appropriate for mass consumption.

I dont know what retarded artists you have been talking to. probably those who had no education in art or philosophy.
If you can use oil paints or own a high quality screen for painting it still does not make you an artist in the sense of having a historical social and philosophical perspective on the matter.

File: madonna-litta-madonna-and-the-child(1).jpg (1MB, 1200x1544px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1544px

>>552420
Art is the controlled channelling of Dionysus

>>552644
Is art this solid continuum the way you describe it? Can it not go back? I think it has before in the past more than once.

>>552541
Apply those standards to literature and cinema, then have a think about what would be elevated over all else.

>>552866
It doesnt "go back" it takes older elements and rethinks them in the spirit of the time or uses them as inspiration for creating things appropriate for the time.